Sin means to miss the mark. Let us never conflate or connotate any other meaning. One does not start by hitting the mark, and their is no shame in missing the mark. Even in science we have ad hoc. Their is only shame in not improving, not learning from our mistakes. Everything is not known to a child, they must learn everything all over again. This is why in the Zed everything must be allowed for the sake of experiment. It might be known, and it might be true, but it is not known to the novitiate and they must have the right to prove it to themselves. As a society increases the number of taboos, understanding is diminished and society stupefied. Everybody must be free to test the sciences and the received knowledge and the mandates from the structures of authority. If they can’t be convinced they must have the right to prove it to themselves.

Many long years have I spent observing the human condition. Some people and groups are successfull beyond comprehension and others fail miserably and are forgotten. I have in my life documented and studied the processes and patterns leading to success in relationship as well as failing together through improper relationship. My philosophy can be summed up by the simple latin phrase you see above. Equality under reason.

I have long been amazed about how the more irrational person in the relationship is the dominate person in the relationship. They are allowed to get away with more and to steal from the relationship while contributing less. The irrational person will refuse to participate when needed and demand participation with it’s own will, lacking understanding it behaves like a dumb animal and thwarts all the good done by the reasoning person. I wonder if this was not what Zarathustra was referring to.

It is so much easier in this world to do evil than good. It reminds me of what Paul said to the Romans, “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.” As long as there is ignorance there is no freedom. Evil is an unfortunate marriage of ignorance and action. Every action requires a karmic debt of understanding and fools do not understand how much Karma they create for themselves.

The only sustainable relationship that a wise man can have with an unwise man is an educational one. In order to prevent yourselves from being unevenly yoked the student must realize that they are a subordinate in the relationship and must submit to the superior judgment of the wiser man, anything else invites disaster and failure.

People hear EQUALITY UNDER REASON and they think, “oh, that sounds good enought” it never occurs to them that this doesn’t mean their reason, or feminine reason, it means REASON. It means succeeding together, surviving, it means doing what is required even when it doesn’t suit you. It means that you are required to recognize the authority of reason, submit to it, participate with it, and learn from it. It is a meritocracy of reason. The reasonable and correct person gets to do it their way by reason of their having superior results and reason. You don’t get to experiment with others resources and squander their surplus for your education or whim. You have to live within your means and create more surplus than you consume, and experiment with your own surplus. It is consciously being in relationship with yourself. Knowing yourself accurately. Letting people know who you are, being predictable unto yourself. Living in the light, not concealing your feelings, thoughts, prejudices, and living in the dark like a troll under a bridge, like a highway man trying to waylay people to extend your miserable existence.

We know that men are not perfect and so we don’t try to be, we try to be honest. Anybody that appears to be a perfect man is lying, and he is less perfect than a man that knows he is not perfect. Anybody that wants to be approached or taught by an apparent perfect man wants to be lied to.

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example “All bachelors are unmarried”). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which “you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science.”;[1]

Now, the interesting question is how do we know that A = A? If they are exactly identical then they are the same, their is only one A. So their must be a granting of equivalent value between A and A. How do we arrive at that? In science the definition of the word is equal to the word itself.

Here is what i believe to be a correct reduction to Plato’s allegory of the cave. The golden a represents the uncorrupted form of the celestial “A” the quintessential A. The one enslaved by ignorance can’t directly behold the celestial A, because as long as one is ignorant there is no freedom. All he knows is the shadow of the letter A cast on the wall, the corrupt, perverted, distorted form, the shadow of its actual self, a pale distorted reflection.

Plato is also called the father of religion, as the Hindus he believed that their was a causal world in which all the uncorrupted forms existed. And every form in this world is a copy of the original. Aristotle believed that material existence is all that is real and our ideas are outcropping of our experiences here. He didn’t believe that there was a world of Idea and man descended from it as did Plato.

“men die, but man is immortal.” ~Plato

I am sure I butchered the quote and it is paraphrased, I couldn’t find the original online, but the idea he is conveying is that while the individual reflections cease to exist the idea continues and the idea, having a subtle existence lasts longer than the actual physical object.

“Philosophy will not die with Plato.” ~Aristotle

Aristotle was arrogantly suggesting that he was the better philosopher than his teacher. I feel that an aspect of philosophy did die with Plato as his disciples were afraid. Aristotle, the father of science threw out anything that could not be proven in the realm of existence, refusing to entertain things that could be conceived of in the realm of thought. To a certain extent it was an act of theft.

“Epiphenomenalism is the theory in philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are caused by physical processes in the brain or that both are effects of a common cause, as opposed to mental phenomena driving the physical mechanics of the brain. The impression that thoughts, feelings, or sensations cause physical effects, is therefore to be understood as illusory to some extent. For example, it is not the feeling of fear that produces an increase in heart beat, both are symptomatic of a common physiological origin, possibly in response to a legitimate external threat.[1]” ~wikipedia

We lost, in the losing of Plato’s perspective, the art of unlocking the genius behind each child. He tolerated Aristotle for this reason:

“Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.”
― Plato

If the universe is changing then their can be no nothingness, but if the universe is nothingness their can be no changing. This is the essence of the universe, self contradictory and mutually exclusive. Nothingness and changingness simultaneously. Ask your self this, “what does the universe HAVE to accomplish?” and the answer that floats to the surface will be “nothing”. But then ask yourself, “what is the purpose of the universe?” and the answer that you will arrive at is, “self awareness”. We are godself experiencing god in god. Each one of us is a facet of god, a face of god. Every one of us is god from a certain angle an angel of god, an aspect of god.

I have noticed a common cognitive bias in conversation, people seem not to be able to tell the difference between their understanding of the world and the actual world. They think that the world works the way they think it does. They get offended if someone disagrees with them about what is going on. That is the reason that scientific experiment exists. If you disagree then you either support your assertions with links to definitive tests proving your conjecture or you have an experiment to see who is correct. There is NO reason to get offended, butt hurt, or emotional. Scientific materials are descriptive, prescriptive, and predictive, so if you are correct you will be able to predict the outcome.

If our understanding of the world or our mind was synonymous with the world or somehow attached to the world then we would be able to change the world with the power of our thoughts. The rational person makes an effort to prove themselves wrong as Nassim Nicholas Taleb said, he doesn’t edit his consideration set and bias mine to prove himself correct. When people are on the verge of realizing that they are wrong they will panic and start repeating themselves like retards, rebuilding their world around themselves like a bacteria encysting.